Agency holiday announcements: King County Metro, Sound Transit, Community Transit, Pierce Transit, Everett Transit, Kitsap Transit, Intercity Transit, Skagit Transit, Washington State Ferries (in Monday’s entry), Seattle Monorail.
Thursday: Most bus and train services operate on their Sunday schedule: Link light rail, the T Line, ST Express, Community Transit, and Pierce Transit. There’s no service on Sounder, Everett Transit, Kitsap Transit, Intercity Transit, Skagit Transit, or the Seattle Monorail. Washington State Ferries has special schedules on four routes and warns about busy demand and long lines.
Friday: Many bus services (not rail) are on their regular weekday schedule: Metro, ST Express, Community Transit, Pierce Transit, Intercity Transit, Skagit Transit, Washington State Ferries. Link is on Saturday schedule. The T Line is on “reduced Saturday”. Sounder has no service. Everett Transit is on Sunday schedule. Kitsap Transit is on “holiday service” (see each route’s page). The monorail runs 7:30am-11pm.
Pierce Transit buses are free on Friday!
Designing a better commuter rail or metro train. (Wall Street Journal)
Street capacity in The Netherlands. (Not Just Bikes)
This is an open thread.
Everett wants to move its baseball stadum to a location next to the future Everett Link station site. That will affect how much housing and retail can be within walking distance of the station. The reason for the move is it’s a minor-league feeder team for the Mariners, and Major Leage Baseball has revised its requirements for minor-league stadiums.
I guess it’s better than the Seattle stadiums, where the private owners got the city to replace the Kingdome so each team could have its own stadium and lucrative luxury boxes for high-paying fans.
The first question should be, why would anybody want to live in downtown Everett? It’s slightly better off than downtown Tacoma, but it’s still pretty much a wasteland. With WFH or hybrid work schedules the norm now, there really isn’t much need for office space in secondary city downtowns. Retail? The entire Puget Sound is saturated with way too much retail and much of it has free parking.
Don’t kid yourself…. MLB is in cahoots with the Mayor’s office in this one. I mean a dude has a warehouse growing mushrooms where the new ballpark is going in. A fucking warehouse growing mushrooms?!?! That’s downtown failure, right? If I was the mayor I’d do everything short of arson to get rid of a mushroom farm in my downtown. You all know mushrooms grow in cow shit, right? Truckloads of it.
It’s not like Everett has any better offers here. Not every town has a minor league baseball team. What happens to that stupid mushroom farm if a new ballpark isn’t built? A bunch of crappy apartments and another brewery? Like Everett needs that?
If anybody who lives in Everett, or even anybody who’d actually move to Everett wants to call me out for trashing a mushroom farm… I’d gladly listen. Go Aquasox! I hope Everett always has a baseball team…. and hockey team. For all you WHL fans out there, the Kamloops Blazers are coming to Everett Saturday!. Go Slivertips!
“why would anybody want to live in downtown Everett?”
Didn’t you say something about Seattle and King County being too expensive to live in? Tacoma is further away from Seattle and harder to get to than Everett is. Everett is the largest city in Snohomish County and has the largest walkable, traditionally-scaled area. People who are looking for the best transit access and walkability in Snohomish County will have to choose between downtown Everett or downtown Lynnwood. Both of them are promising a lot and who knows if it will happen, but maybe they’ll get their act together. In the meantime each of them have different advantages.
Mike Orr
The difference between the distance between Tacoma or Everett is like a 5 miles difference between both.
I know plenty of people who live in the downtown Everett area. One who lives a few blocks off downtown in a condo complex. They likes it for ease of access to shops and resturants in downtown, like the Sno-Isle Food Co Op which has a great restaurant next door with the Sisters Resturant. They’re able to work from home and take a lunch break to go grocery shopping or get a sandwich or something. Which they likes as it affords them time to spend with their adult kids and partner.
I also have another friend from Dallas who recently moved to Everett because he likes the city but also cost compared to Seattle. He is interested in staying in Everett but moving to a different rental as his current one doesn’t work for him. He’s still figuring out if he wants to stay in Seattle or move Vancouver, BC as he’s a Canadian. But he likes it because the cost for housing is decent enough for him.
Also know a couple business owners in the area, one who has an office near Everett College who has a small consulting business and another person who runs a small medical company in Downtown Everett. They both like the city because they don’t need require a fancy office space and the talent pool they want is already concentrated in Snohomish. Which makes it easier to hire talent.
In the end, Everett isn’t a wasteland and is actually decent like Tacoma is. The amenities they both offer differ slightly. Everett has a nicer more accessible marina and Tacoma has a much nicer big park to explore.
In my opinion Tacoma has more character, but Everett is not without its charms. More than you might assume if you just visited once or twice. In contrast it is easier to see the old buildings in Tacoma and everything else that goes with it. Everett is a bit closer to Seattle and significantly closer to the UW. Tacoma is closer to the airport and that’s about it.
In terms of transit it varies. If you are trying to get to Downtown Seattle then my guess is Tacoma is better most of the time. As I write this (on the Friday morning after Thanksgiving) the 594 can get me from Downtown Tacoma to Downtown Seattle in less than an hour. The main drawback to the 594 is that it only runs every half hour (due to the driver shortage). Everett to Seattle takes quite a bit longer, as you need to transfer to Link.
During peak, both cities have Sounder as an option, but the train runs to Tacoma a lot more often. Both cities also have express bus service. In both cases the buses are slowed down by WSDOT’s inability to change a “2” to a “3” on the HOV signs.
Tacoma is a bigger city, in every respect. I would consider the hiking opportunities to be better in Everett, but Tacoma is no slouch, given Rainier is so close (and the Olympics aren’t that far away). I could see living in either city, for various reasons (affordability being one of the biggest).
I see that the underlying problem is planning for just one Downtown Everett Station.
One thing that has always frustrated me about the Everett Link plan is how there is a gap of five miles between that and the next closest station. It’s like the distance between TIBS and Rainier Beach — except there is just one end station on the northern end.
I’ve long felt that unless there are at least two or three stations close together at a line’s end (with TOD) that the track investment may not be worth it.
Link shouldn’t just reach the edge of established downtowns either (if they cover a large area like Everett). They should go through those downtown districts deep enough to serve most of the densified district.
Just like Link should have been planned with two stations north of the ship canal in Ballard or an additional station or two in Downtown Tacoma, Downtown Everett should have at least two stations each with TOD potential. To stop at the edge is cheaper but it misses the opportunity to take advantage of the density already there and add riders with only a bit more track..
And I think Redmond did it “right” putting in two end stations close to each other, giving more value to the long distance (just 3 mines compared to Everett’s 5) from Redmond Technology Station.
Only miss for Redmond Link is the lack of a station at 51st and possibly Bear Creek P&R and the Redmond Transit Center but it is what it is.
Everett wants an extension to downtown Everett and Everett College. It articulated that late in spine planning when ST’s Long-Range Plan was revised in 2015; it said that would be the final end of the spine. It wasn’t funded in ST3 but it would be Snohomish’s first ask in ST4.
I’ve long felt that unless there are at least two or three stations close together at a line’s end (with TOD) that the track investment may not be worth it.
In general if a line has wide stop spacing it isn’t worth it. There are obvious exceptions. If you are going over a bridge then you will have a big gap. There are also areas where there is practically nothing for a while. But rarely do those areas suddenly have destinations worthy of the investment.
It goes back to the fundamentals. The longer the track, the more expensive it is to build. The longer the trip, the less likely people are to travel. This is usually expressed the other way around (proximity leads to high ridership) but the idea is the same.
Again, there are exceptions. But in general you want a lot of stops to maximize ridership, with few gaps. Most of the worlds highly successful metros operate this way. In contrast, newer (American) metros have tried to stretch the envelope (and failed in the process). BART, for example has ridiculously wide stop spacing on the East Bay. DART and Denver have similar systems and fairly poor ridership (for the cities they serve). In contrast, DC has a metro that they call a hybrid commuter/metro system, but stop spacing is quite good. It more or less resembles an S-Bahn system, with thorough coverage inside the urban core, but stations more spread-out in the more distant suburbs. At worst they spent a lot of extra money on those extensions — but at least they covered the core fairly well.
Unfortunately, our system is more like BART than the DC Metro. There is only one station between downtown and the UW — probably the most urban part of the state. There is a big gap between the two UW stations. (I get why they couldn’t add the station inside the campus, but they should have added a station at Campus Parkway & The Ave.) They should have focused on quality (lots of stations) over quantity (lots of miles of track).
It isn’t terrible — plenty of American systems are worse. But few (if any) outside of this country. I think it is a fairly unique American design that has failed miserably. I understand the reasoning (we sprawl so our subway lines should sprawl as well) but we end up spending a fortune for poor systems.
In contrast, the Canadians (who also sprawl like us) have not gone down that road. The Toronto and Montreal subways are fairly traditional. A bit small, but now they are making them bigger. Vancouver has not only built a really good subway, but they are clearly focused on bus integration, which I believe is essential for serving sprawling areas.
“There is a big gap between the two UW stations.”
That’s a big gap? It looks normal to me. It’s not downtown. It serves the two parts of the U-District. You could add a third one at 55th but that’s not between the two.
The lack of a station at Red Square/The Quad is probably one bad decision in hindsight. Also add no stop in Montlake Neighborhood south of the Ship Canal, Volunteer Park, someone between Bellevue and Broadway on Pike/Pine that kisses the edges of Capitol Hill and First Hill.
“ Unfortunately, our system is more like BART than the DC Metro. ”
Maybe the stop spacing is, but the Link trains themselves are only getting a 55 mph maximum speed in those long gaps compared to BART’s 79 mph. To me that makes it much worse than BART.
“There is a big gap between the two UW stations.”
That’s a big gap? It looks normal to me.
It is a big gap. It looks normal to you only because most of Link has worse stop spacing. But a normal subway would have a station between there. To get an idea of the gap:
It is a 25 minute walk between stations. https://maps.app.goo.gl/PbTxm55JNRvzH6y86. That is the same amount of walking between Westlake Station and CID Station: https://maps.app.goo.gl/yvYd1e6my2THSFUBA. The distances between stations is similar as well.
So in downtown they have four stations within a similar stretch (instead of two). It is worth pointing out that they had originally planned on having five (but ran out of money so they couldn’t build a station at Madison).
But I am not asking for four stations (or even five) but three. The distance between stations be typical for a subway system in an urban area (this is what folks mean by “urban stop spacing”). And this is a very urban area. On that basis alone it should have another stop.
But also consider the buses. Notice how awkward it is to connect to Link from some directions. Instead of the 31/32 just continuing on the same east-west corridor and straight across to the campus, it has to make a series of turns to get north in order to connect to the U-District Station. The 49 runs right by where I would put a station. But to actually get to the station the bus first heads east then north and loops around back west. The 65/67 is not symmetrical. Heading towards Roosevelt it goes through campus (as you would expect) creating somewhat of a spine from the U-Village through campus (as well as giving riders from Lake City two good ways to get to the UW campus). Going the other way it runs on Pacific, in an attempt to improve the connection to Link (thus breaking various combinations).
It is easy to criticize Metro (for at times violating their own routing policies) but my point is it would be much easier if there was a station either inside the main campus area (close to the HUB, which was the original plan) or at Campus Parkway. So not do a lot of people have a very long walk to a station but the buses aren’t as good either.
But hey, the important thing is that we extend our system much farther than the New York City Subway, Paris Metro or London Underground. Onward to Fife and Ash Way!
Maybe the stop spacing is, but the Link trains themselves are only getting a 55 mph maximum speed in those long gaps compared to BART’s 79 mph. To me that makes it much worse than BART.
My point is that BART itself is not very good. Even if our trains were faster the system would not be very good. Put it this way: If BART built a normal subway but with much slower trains (like ours) it would get a lot more riders.
It doesn’t matter that much that our trains are slow. Or that our trains are light rail. I completely agree that it would be better if our trains were faster, had open gangways and were high-floor. Speed and capacity would be better and it would be much easier to move around the cars. But it still wouldn’t be a great system.
Likewise as important as I think automation is, it is really the mindset behind it that is key. SkyTrain is automated, but it would still be an excellent system if it wasn’t. But the fact that it was automated made it less likely they would make a BART-type system. The station size shrinks. You assume higher frequency service, which is more appropriate for a metro (and less important with commuter rail). You end up with a system that is more traditional (i. e. more like a normal European city) even if your city sprawls.
“It looks normal to you only because most of Link has worse stop spacing. But a normal subway would have a station between there.”
But the stations are underground and mined. Adding more stations would have cost a lot more. If they were surface or cut-and-cover this would be less significant. If you can walk from one station to the next, I’d say they’re too close, and when they’re mined, adding a station becomes very expensive.
Adding more stations would have cost a lot more.
Yes, and it would have been worth it because you would have had a lot more riders (and saved those riders a lot of time). Of course stations are expensive, but building anything is expensive. You want to maximize your investment by providing as much coverage (in the really dense areas) as possible. Otherwise it is like buying a Ferrari but adding cheap tires. Sure, it looks nice, but if you want to use it for what it is a good at (going really fast, hopefully on a closed track) then you are wasting your money.
If you can walk from one station to the next, I’d say they’re too close,
Just about everyone who has ever built a subway — and even the planners for our busway — would disagree with you. That doesn’t mean you would have close stop spacing in Shoreline. But you would definitely have it downtown, the UW and Downtown Bellevue. Which, to their credit, they actually have. All the stops between BelRed and East Main are closer together than the two stops in the U-District. The only major flaw, really, is that East Main should be to the west, which would provide more coverage of the really dense areas in Downtown Bellevue. But it is bizarre that much of Bellevue has more urban stop spacing then the U-District.
I have to think the focus on “The Spine” had a lot to do with it. On the East Side they weren’t fixated on going deep into the hinterlands. The entire thing is going to be 18 miles long, and that includes huge sections where you really can’t add anything (as it over the water or next to a swamp). So course they wanted to cover the area as best they could. The fundamentals are sound, even if we can argue about the particulars.
In contrast, consider there are only four stations in between Northgate and Westlake. As the crow flies this is over six miles! It is even more when you account for the turns to accommodate the stations they did serve. This means an average gap between stations over well over a mile and a half! Yet this is arguably the section with the most potential — the section that is likely to get the most riders per mile. If your goal is to maximize your investment then you don’t build it that way — you add a lot more stations. If your goal is to quickly get to Everett then you only serve a handful of places (like they did).
Even in Northgate, I kind of wish Link had another station on the north side of Northgate Way. Riding past it on the elevated track, you can see there is a lot of stuff there, both housing and retail. But, instead of having the train right there, they have the choice of either a 10 minute ugly walk next to the freeway or a 5 minute walk to a bus to go 3/4 mile.
A Northgate Way station would also allow for a bus that goes straight through on Northgate Way to connect to it. For instance, imagine a route 40 that continued on Northgate Way to Lake City.
But, the reason why we don’t have this is understandable. From the perspective of Lynnwood and Everett, they don’t really care about getting to destinations throughout Seattle. Rather, they figure the train is for getting downtown, and their car is for getting everywhere else. So, for them, adding more stations in Seattle is pure negative – more cost, slower ride to downtown, only to gain access to destinations that they don’t need a train for to begin with because they can just drive there. The problem is, this narrow view of Link where it’s simply something you drove to to go downtown is rather limited in the number of riders it can carry. To justify itself, Link needs to do more than that. Hence, the need for more stations.
“From the perspective of Lynnwood and Everett, they don’t really care about getting to destinations throughout Seattle.”
They didn’t care when the Spine was designed. Now their constituents care because they want to take Link to those places. But will “they” (Snohomish government officials) ever acknowledge that?
A Northgate Way station would also allow for a bus that goes straight through on Northgate Way to connect to it. For instance, imagine a route 40 that continued on Northgate Way to Lake City.
Exactly.
They [Lynnwood and Everett riders] didn’t care when the Spine was designed. Now their constituents care because they want to take Link to those places.
Yes, absolutely.
It reminds of this gem written by d.p. a long time ago: https://seattletransitblog.com/2013/02/14/news-roundup-geeks/#comment-292594. He compares the DC Metro with Link, creating a transit dystopia that occurred because DC went with “the spine”. The part of about suburban riders losing out as well is really important:
One might think Baltimore and Manassas would at least be happy with this outcome, as all-day 10-to-15-minute service provides the ability to flee these profoundly struggling and profoundly boring (respectively) cities on a moment’s notice. But perhaps not. The likelihood that any given Baltimorean or Manassahol can travel all the way to D.C. without planning ahead is vanishingly slim. The likelihood that all their needs, once there, will be within easy reach of the “spine” is even slimmer. And after nearly an hour spent on the train, will they really choose to fight the last three miles of their journey on a run-down and unreliable bus? More likely, they’ll begrudgingly get in their cars and fight the traffic apocalypse – growing ever worse because the real DC Metro was never built – all the way to the parts of the District they actually wish to reach.
Even Baltimoreans who regularly travel to DC do much better with today’s MARC schedules (which resemble Sound Transit express buses in frequency and speed), plus access to the full array of destinations served by DC Metro, than they would with a 10-minute “spine” that brings them to DC but doesn’t get them where they want to go.
(Emphasis mine).
I’ve been to the current Everett baseball stadium. It has its charms for a single-A baseball field, particularly the grass berm in right field where fans can picnic while watching the game. However, it’s showing its age, it’s tricky to find, and the layout isn’t ideal (the locker rooms are behind the left field foul pole, so players from both teams have to walk through the fans after the game).
The success of the Everett Silvertips and their Angel of the Winds Arena suggests that a downtown ballpark would be a great solution. The flexible dimensions of baseball outfields could create interesting game. A transit-friendly location will encourage more attendance, and create and interestingly shaped outfield, depending on which parcel they have to adjust the field to.
And while the Kingdome was important to the city, I don’t miss it one bit. Lumen and T-Mobile are far better places to watch a game, and far safer (less cramped aisles and ramps, no ceiling tiles falling on the field).